skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64647 Find in a Library
Title: STUDY ON THE ISSUE OF INDETERMINATE VERSUS DETERMINATE SENTENCING
Journal: JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL  Volume:30  Issue:4  Dated:(NOVEMBER 1979)  Pages:39-45
Author(s): J E BUTLER
Corporate Author: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Reno, NV 89507
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: SEVEN JUVENILE JUDGES AND TWO DIRECTORS OF JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS WERE INTERVIEWED CONCERNING THEIR OPINIONS ON INDETERMINATE AND DETERMINATE SENTENCING AND ON THE EFFECTS OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING ON JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
Abstract: THE JUVENILE JUSTICE TASK FORCE, IN TRYING TO RECONCILE THE REHABILITATIVE AND CRIME CONTROL ASPECTS OF THE JUVENILE COURT, RECOMMENDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FIXED TIME LIMITS ON JUVENILE SENTENCES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE SENTENCING DISPARITIES. THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO THE JUDGES AND DIRECTORS ASKED THREE QUESTIONS: (1) SHOULD A SENTENCE BE DETERMINED BY A JUDGE OR BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; (2) DOES A JUVENILE INSTITUTIONALIZED ON AN OPEN-END SENTENCE RESPOND WITH INCREASED DEFIANCE OR COMPLACENCY; AND (3) IS IT EASIER TO WORK WITH A DELINQUENT IF HE KNOWS HOW LONG HE WILL BE INCARCERATED OR IF HIS TERM DEPENDS ON COOPERATION. ALTHOUGH ANSWERS TO THE FIRST QUESTION VARIED, SEVERAL JUDGES AND BOTH DIRECTORS FELT THAT THE LENGTH OF STAY SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES WHO WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO EVALUATE THE OFFENDER. RESPONDENTS FELT THAT THE ATTITUDE OF AN OFFENDER TOWARDS COOPERATION DEPENDED ON THE ABILITIES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL STAFF TO BE HONEST WITH THE CHILD AND MAKE SURE THAT HE OR SHE UNDERSTOOD THE GOALS THAT HAD TO BE ACHIEVED FOR RELEASE. SOME PARTICIPANTS FELT THAT INDETERMINATE SENTENCING WAS MORE CONDUCIVE TO BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION BUT QUESTIONED ITS USES IN SOLVING BASIC PERSONALITY PROBLEMS. IN REALITY FUNDING CONSTRAINTS AND OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS GOVERN RELEASE UNDER THE OPEN-END SYSTEM RATHER THAN REHABILITATIVE PROGRESS. MANY JUDGES FELT THAT SENTENCING PROCEDURES SHOULD FOLLOW THE STANDARDS AND GOALS SET BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARD PROJECT OF THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH PROVIDE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SENTENCES DEPENDING ON THE CRIME SEVERITY. FOOTNOTES AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED.
Index Term(s): Determinate Sentencing; Indeterminate sentences; Juvenile courts; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing guidelines
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64647

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.